coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in San Giovanni Lupatoto (Verona).
6.  G.S., the applicant's father, was the owner of a flat in Cagliari which he had let to G.A.S.
7.  In a registered letter of 3 June 1991, the applicant's father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 February 1992, the applicant's father reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Cagliari Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 23 March 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Cagliari Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 June 1992.
10.  On 20 July 1992, the applicant's father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On an unspecified date, the applicant's father made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
12.  Subsequently, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 October 1992.
13.  Between 13 October 1992 and 23 June 1995, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant's father was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 25 May 1995, the applicant's father made a request for police assistance.
15.  On 27 July 1995, the Cagliari Prefect informed him that the police assistance would be granted after 30 September 1996.
16.  On 22 September 1997, the applicant's father died and his daughter, the actual applicant, inherited the flat and took part in the proceedings as an heir.
17.  On 13 July 1998, the Prefect informed the bailiff that the police assistance would be granted only after 31 December 1998, as there was no urgent necessity, the applicant's father having died.
18.  On 19 April 1999, the applicant served on the tenant the order to vacate the premises.
19.  On 3 May 1999, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 May 1999.
20.  On an unspecified day of May 2001, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
5.  The applicants were respectively born in 1943 and 1972 and live in Milan.
6.  E.G., the first applicant's husband and the second applicant's father, was the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to R.M.
7.  In a registered letter of 24 June 1985, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 December 1985 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 October 1985, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 5 December 1985, which was made enforceable on 14 December 1985, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 December 1986.
10.  On 30 March 1987, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 17 April 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 May 1987.
12.  Between 15 May 1987 and 11 July 1996, the bailiff made thirty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 14 July 1996, the owner died and the applicants inherited the flat and became part of the proceedings as heirs.
14.  Between 12 November 1996 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 14 November 2000, the tenant died and the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicants, Mr Adem Kepeneklioğlu and Mr Mehmet Hakan Canpolat, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1954 and 1964 respectively. When they lodged their application with the Court they were imprisoned in Turkey.
7.  On 29 and 30 June 1992 the applicants were taken into custody in Istanbul by police officers from the Istanbul Anti-Terrorist Branch. On 13 July 1992 they were detained on remand.
8.  On 27 July 1992 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicants of, inter alia, organised murder and armed burglary, as well as being members of an illegal terrorist organization.
9.  On 25 November 1992 the Istanbul State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicants and three other accused and prolonged the applicants' detention.
10.  On 3 April 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants under Article 146 of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to death.
11.  On 10 March 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.
12.  On 12 June 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted them of the same crimes.
13.  On 4 February 2002, upon the applicants' appeal, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the State Security Court.
4.  The applicant, Mr İbrahim Acar was born in 1933 and lives in Siirt.
5.  On 9 October 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicant.A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was paid to him on 12 and 13 August 1996.
6.  On 15 October 1996 the applicant initiated proceedings for additional compensation. Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 1 September 1997 the Baykan Civil Court of First‑Instance awarded him additional compensation of 163,847,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 8 November 1996.
7.  On 28 September 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
8.  According to the order of the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways, the amount due was paid to the applicant on 22 December 1998. The applicant claimed that he was paid on 4 January 1999. He received a total of TRL 368,837,000.[2]
7.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1968 respectively and live in Warrington.
8.  The first applicant, B, married A and this marriage ended in divorce in 1987. B and A had a son together, C. The first applicant then married D. The first applicant and D separated in August 1994 and the divorce was finalised on 9 July 1997.
9.  The second applicant, L, married C, the first applicant's son from his first marriage. The first applicant and the second applicant were therefore father-in-law and daughter-in-law. The second applicant and C separated in 1995 and their divorce was finalised on 8 May 1997. The second applicant and C have a son together, W. The first applicant is, therefore, W's grandfather.
10.  A relationship developed between the first and second applicants in 1995 after C had left the second applicant's matrimonial home. The applicants have been cohabiting since 1996. W lives with the applicants and only has sporadic contact with his father, C. W now calls the first applicant “Dad”. The applicants plan to adopt W which is permitted by domestic adoption law.
11.  In a letter dated 29 May 2002, the first applicant wrote to the Superintendent Registrar of Deaths and Marriages at Warrington Register Office to inquire about whether he could marry the second applicant. In a letter dated 13 June 2002, the Superintendent Registrar stated that under the relevant domestic legislation, it would be impossible for the applicants to marry unless A and C were both dead:
“... The only circumstances a marriage could be allowed between yourself and [L] would be if you had both attained the age of twenty one and you could produce evidence of the death of your son and his mother (your first wife).”
12.  The applicants subsequently sought legal advice on whether there was any remedy against the decision of the Superintendent Registrar but were advised by counsel that no remedy existed since the basis for the decision was primary legislation, namely, the Marriage Act 1949 as amended by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986.
4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  In December 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against Mr S. (her neighbour), alleging that he had unlawfully seized and re-designed a corridor (measuring approximately 4 square meters) in their shared house.
6.  On 28 December 1998 the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the District Court”) allowed the applicant's claim. She was awarded the ownership of the disputed corridor and Mr S. was ordered to restore its original design.
7.  On 17 May 1999 the District Court, at the applicant's request, quashed its decision of 28 December 1998 due to new circumstances (namely, that the shared house had historical value) and reopened the proceedings.
8.  On 19 August 1999 the District Court allowed the applicant's claim, declared the corridor in question to be the applicant's property and ordered Mr S. to remove the unauthorised changes in the corridor's design. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final ten days later, on 29 August 1999.
9.  Enforcement proceedings commenced in October 1999.
10.  On 8 February 2001, while the enforcement proceedings were in progress, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged a supervisory protest (an extraordinary appeal) against the judgment of 19 August 1999 on the ground that the first instance court had erred in its assessment of evidence and in the application of the law.
11.  The protest was examined on 26 February 2001 by the Presidium of the Kyiv City Court. Having accepted the reasons advanced by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, the Presidium quashed the judgment 19 August 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
12.  On 3 July 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim due to her failure to pay in full the State tax for the introduction of the complaint. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and currently resides in the town of Pervomayskiy, the Kharkiv region, Ukraine.
5.  On 26 March 2001 the Pervomayskiy Town Court ordered the Khimprom State Enterprise to pay the applicant UAH 3,923.4 (around 640 euros –“ EUR”) in salary arrears.
6.  In August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pervomayskiy Town Court against the Pervomayskiy Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 7 September 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. On 19 November 2001 and 10 April 2002, respectively, the Appellate Court of the Kharkiv Region and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the first instance court.
7.  The enforcement proceedings were suspended from 18 July 2001 until 10 September 2001 pending the proceedings against the Bailiffs' Service instituted by the applicant in the Pervomayskiy Town Court.
8.  On 18 June 2001 the procedure for the forced sale of the debtor's assets was suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the President.
9.  The enforcement proceedings were also suspended from 4 September 2003 until 13 January 2004 pending the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor.
10.  On 24 June 2004 the applicant was informed by a letter from the Bailiffs' Service that the judgment in her favour was not executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the latter's lack of funds.
11.  The judgment of 26 March 2001 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Siirt.
5.  On 20 December 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicant.A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to him.
6.  Following the applicant's request for increased compensation, on 8 September 1998 the Baykan Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation of 114,180,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1], plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision. In order to calculate the amount of increased compensation, the court consulted several experts.
7.  The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways appealed against the judgment of 8 September 1998.
8.  On 19 October 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
9.  According to the order of the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways, the amount of TRL 248,595,000[2] was paid to the applicant on 22 December 1998. The applicant claimed that he was paid on 4 January 1999.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  In 1996 the National Water Board (Devlet Su İşleri) expropriated a part of the applicant’s plot of land. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to her.
6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 14 July 1997 the Bursa Civil Court of First-instance awarded her additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.
7.  On 14 October 1997 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and quashed the judgment of the First-instance court.
8.  On 27 April 1998 the Bursa Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicant additional compensation of 3,591,690,496 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 29 August 1996, applicable at the date of the court’s decision.
9.  On 7 July 1998 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the Bursa Civil Court of First-instance.
10.  On 6 October 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification.
11.  On 29 December 1998 the National Water Board paid TRL 7,101,232,000[2] to the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the city of Lysychansk, the Lugansk region, Ukraine.
5.  By two separate decisions of 7 July 1999, the labour disputes commission ordered the Pryvolnyanska State Mine (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 1,418.27 (around 236 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears.
6.  In August 1998 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above decision.
7.  On 2 January 2001 the Lugansk Regional Arbitration Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine.
8.  On 15 February 2002 the Lysychansk City Court ordered the Mine to pay the applicant UAH 2,931.63 (around EUR 488) in salary arrears.
9.  On 11 April 2002 the Bailiffs’ Services instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the decision of 15 February 2002.
10.  According to the Government, on 28 November 2003 the sum of UAH 4,259.90 was transferred to the applicant’s bank account.
11.  According to the applicant, he was not paid all the amounts awarded by the decisions at issue, the outstanding debt being UAH 42.60 (around EUR 7).
12.  On 1 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the decisions of 7 July 1999 and 15 February 2002 on the ground that these decisions had been enforced in full.
13.  The applicant did not challenge the Bailiffs’ decision of 1 December 2003 before the domestic courts.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Turkey.
5.  On 23 May 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Antalya Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the TDKP/GKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party / Young Communist Union). He was subsequently taken to the Antalya Security Directorate Building, where he was interrogated. During his police interrogation the applicant signed a statement. He claims to have been subjected to pressure and ill-treatment when signing the document.
6.  On 28 May 1995 the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.
7.  On 27 June 1995 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed an indictment charging the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code with membership of the TDKP/GKB.
8.  On 18 April 1996 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The court further debarred the applicant from working in the civil service.
9.  On 13 October 1997 the applicant appealed.
10.  On 2 February 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal upholding the Izmir State Security Court’s judgment. The decision of the Court of Cassation was pronounced in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer and it was not notified to them.
11.  On 26 February 1998 the decision of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the Izmir State Security Court.
12.  With a letter dated 23 June 2005, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had been conditionally released from prison on 5 October 2004 after having served three quarters of his sentence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in the town of Pervomaisk, the Kharkiv region, Ukraine.
5.  In 1998 and 2001, respectively, the applicant instituted two sets of proceedings in the Pervomaisk Town Court against the Pervomaisk chemical factory “Khimprom” (the “PCFK”) – a State-owned enterprise – to recover unpaid salary. By decision of 2 November 1998, the court awarded the applicant UAH 2,974.79 (473 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears and other payments. By another decision of 24 April 2001, the court awarded him UAH 2,307.11 (EUR 358) in salary arrears.
6.  On 9 July 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgments given in his favour were not executed due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the President.
7.  In July 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pervomaisk Town Court against the bailiff of the Pervomaisk Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgments in his favour. On 5 September 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the bailiff.
8.  On 21 November 2001 and 8 April 2002, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
9.  Between 4 September 2003 and 13 January 2004 the enforcement proceedings were suspended due to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the PCFK.
10.  On 13 July 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that he was number 44 on the creditors’ waiting list in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 1998. He was also number 472-474 on the creditors’ waiting list in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 24 April 2001.
11.  The judgments in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently serving a prison sentence at Penitentiary No. 8 in Zhytomyr (see in the latter respect Lupandin v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 70898/01, 7 October 2003).
5.  In September 1995 the applicant had a serious accident at work in the Petrovskaya Mining Company (a State-owned enterprise, hereafter the “PMC”).
6.  A year later, in September 1996, the PMC decided to pay the applicant a lump sum in compensation for the injury. However, no payment was made and in early 1997 the applicant sued the PMC for compensation for the industrial injury. On 20 March 1997 the Petrovsky District Court of Donetsk found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 16,445.74[1]. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final ten days later, on 30 March 1997.
7.  On 10 April 1997 the Petrovsky District Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment of 20 March 1997.
8.  On 20 March 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the PMC and issued an injunction barring the debt recovery.
9.  On 18 April 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service stayed the execution proceedings against the Company pending the resolution of the bankruptcy case.
10.  In letters of 12 June and 15 and 25 October 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings were impeded by ongoing bankruptcy litigation and the entry into force of the 2001 Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s capital assets.
11.  On 7 April 2003 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings against the PMC and, accordingly, the Bailiffs Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant’s case. However, it appears that the gradual enforcement of the judgment of 20 March 1997 continued even during the period when the proceedings were formally suspended, as by October 2003 (when the case was communicated to the Government for observations) the applicant had been paid a total of UAH 5,712.88[2] in several instalments, including UAH 100[3] on 30 October 2002 and UAH 200[4] on 6 February 2003.
12.  On 7 November and 1 December 2003 the applicant was repaid the remainder of the amount awarded by the judgment of 20 March 1997.
13.  On 15 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the city of Zhytomyr, Ukraine.
5.  On 28 January 2000 the applicant retired from his post in the Zhytomyr Regional Police Department (hereafter “the Police Department”). Having received no redundancy pay, to which he was entitled, the applicant instituted proceedings against the Police Department, seeking the recovery of the debt.
6.  On 7 November 2001 the Koroliovsky District Court of Zhytomyr awarded the applicant UAH 7,410[1] in redundancy pay arrears. On 12 March 2002, the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”), on the Police Department’s appeal, re-examined the case and upheld this judgment.
7.  On 19 March 2002 the Koroliovsky District Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 7 November 2001 and joined the applicant’s case to other enforcement actions against the debtor.
8.  On 14 June 2002 the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr rejected the applicant’s complaint about the bailiffs’ inactivity. The court stated that in October 2001, acting in the course of the enforcement proceedings to which the applicant’s case was subsequently joined, the Bailiffs’ Service levied the Police Department’s bank account, which revealed no funds suitable for attachment. The court found that no further actions regarding the Police Department’s account were possible in the absence of budgetary funds earmarked for such purposes. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 26 August 2002 and by the Supreme Court on 13 January 2003.
9.  On 17 January 2004 the Koroliovsky District Court of Zhytomyr, on the Police Department’s request, temporarily suspended the enforcement proceedings. On 6 April 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision as it was taken in the applicant’s absence and manifestly unfounded. On 14 May 2004 the Koroliovsky District Court of Zhytomyr ultimately rejected the Police Department’s request.
10.  On 23 September 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment of 7 November 2001 had been enforced in full.